California was once known as the destination for anyone seeking a fortune, from the Gold Rush to Hollywood. The image of a line of wagon trains heading West has now been replaced by a line of U-Hauls heading anywhere but California. Unable to stem the exodus, California is again toying with retroactive taxes — targeting the wealthy regardless of whether they flee the state. Welcome to Hotel California, “you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”California democrats have long faced the same dilemma of constantly tapping the wealthy to cover their deficit spending: these individuals and their wealth are mobile. They can simply leave and many are doing so. We recently discussed how California is now losing a taxpayer every minute.Previously, the state moved to tax people who left the state. Now, the state is seeking a billionaire tax and making it retroactive. Thus, even if you were waiting to decide to leave, it is too late. You are being taxed for the prior year.
California Democrats are pushing the retroactive billionaire tax targeting the roughly 220 billionaires residing in California in 2025. It signals not just desperation in the face of crippling debt and overspending but a recognition that California is chasing its highest earners out of the state.
The “2026 Billionaires Tax Act” would impose a one-time 5% tax on individual wealth exceeding $1 billion. While technically using 2026 wealth figures, it would apply to billionaires who resided in California in 2025. So you cannot hope to flee… at least with your wealth intact. It is a penalty for those who stayed too long hoping that rational minds would prevail in California.
The tax is a familiar tactic of many in politics who attack the wealthiest citizens as somehow ripping off the poor. If states can do this for billionaires, it is likely to do it for those in lower tax brackets as they face the choice between financial discipline and tax increases.
As I discuss in my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, there is a common myth that the top five percent of this country do not “pay their fair share.” However, putting that debate aside, the question is whether it will produce more revenue than it costs the state in the long run. As these politicians campaign on clipping the “fat cats” who are not paying their fair share, many are likely to follow the exodus to lower tax states with greater fiscal discipline.
The constitutionality of a retroactive tax has long been controversial. In Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), the Supreme Court declared “the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence… [e]lementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and conform their conduct accordingly; settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted.”
Most Americans are obviously not billionaires, but see the obvious unfairness to such retroactive taxes. People are allowed to make decisions on whether they want to stay in a state and how to invest their money in light of tax and other considerations. These retroactive taxes allow a bait-and-switch for taxpayers as politicians tap wealth from prior years.
However, in United States v. Carlton (1994), the Court addressed a new estate tax deduction for selling stock in employee stock ownership plans that was included in the 1986 tax reform law. In January 1987, the IRS announced that the legislation had a flaw: it did not require a taxpayer to own the stock before dying. New legislation was passed in December 1987 with retroactive effect to the 1986 law.
The Supreme Court refused to strike down the 14 months of retroactive application. Calling the change “modest,” the Court noted that the IRS sent out a quick notice that it would seek a legislative fix, and that the law essentially corrected an unintended error. However, even that left some on the Court uneasy, and justices like Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas warned against “bait-and-switch taxation.” The key was the notice and the fact that it only applied to a single year.
Some retroactive taxes have been struck down. For example, in Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142 (1927), a 12-year period of retroactivity was struck down as “so arbitrary and capricious as to amount to confiscation.”
The Court has left the area a mess of countervailing rationales and holdings. However, it has clearly held that retroactive taxes are not per se unconstitutional. In Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 147 (1938), the Court upheld a retroactive tax and held that the outcome depends upon whether “retroactive application is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional limitation.” It stressed that:
“Provided that the retroactive application of a statute is supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means, judgments about the wisdom of such legislation remain within the exclusive province of the legislative and executive branches . . .’
The rational basis test is difficult for a state to fail. However, California could force the Court to reexamine this area and offer more concrete protections for citizens who are retroactively fleeced by a state.
Until then, welcome to the Hotel California:
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
“Relax,” said the night man
“We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave”
Remember this Kiddos when you hear: ‘ ☆ ☆ ☆ Newsom -for- President 2028 ☆ ☆ ☆’
“This is what democracy looks like!” so easy to rouse the rabble to vote for punitive tax increases upon the wealthy on behalf of free-spending Socialists in the Legislature. A targeted billionaire can set up another Foundation or Charity that will receive State contracts or grants and keep those billions recycling and in their view, all the while paying their fair share and allowing Trickle Down Socialist economic-political policies ameliorate the poor and underserved who righteously vote against the 2% and then wait for whatever crumbs fall from the table.
California to wealthy people, please leave.
Apparently big Hollywood donors are lining up behind Newsom for 2028.
Kill the filibuster, make elections in-person, non-electronic, and auditable.
Keep the crazy and vile Newsom contained!
Aren’t wealth taxes a violation of the Constitution?…..a “taking” of property without fair compensation?.
Remember, it took a Constitutional Amendment to begin taxing individual income. That strongly suggests, it also would require on to allow any wealth tax.
That 16th Amendment was necessary for the federal govmint to tax income. The states can do it on their own, but you are correct (I hope) as to the last clause of the 5th amendment.
The Federal government has very significant restrictions on implementing such taxes.
State governments not so much. Property tax is a wealth tax, for example.
Yes, property tax is a kind of wealth tax. But in one respect it is even worse than this proposed wealth tax. Instead of taxing existing wealth, property taxes all too often are taxing unrealized wealth based on some assessor’s conclusion about what your property is worth. You don’t have that wealth in your pocket yet, and you might never get it in your pocket if you cannot sell the house at or above the assessment. Taxes on unrealized wealth or earnings should never be permitted.
“Aren’t wealth taxes a violation of the Constitution?…..a “taking” of property without fair compensation?.”
I am certain that Gruesome and his nefarious ilk would claim that California residency is intrinsically fair compensation *and* is also the primary factor that allowed those subject to the tax to accumulate their wealth. @h013$ of their kind have zero qualms about such fabrications. My curiosity tends more toward questions of enforcement capability. Oversimplified example follows. Suppose I was a wealthy CA resident worth $10BLN in 2025, but I moved all of those assets to Idaho before the enabling CA legislation was passed and signed. So, in 2026, CA claims that I owe them $500MLN tax. How do they force me to pay? Is there some Federal law or regulation enforcing any and all State assessments? If not, wouldn’t enforcement depend on mutually reciprocity between CA and other States (in this example, ID), and what would be the incentive for the other State to enforce this?
” New York, Maryland, and Illinois are waiting with baited breath to use this Bear Trap on its citizens once it gets through the gauntlet of liberal courts”
You omitted the People’s Republics of NJ and Massachusetts from your list of minnow-eating states…
Bad numerical example, I need more coffee. Please make the original asset figure 11Bln for it to solve correctly…
“please don’t come for residency, stay in your state, don’t run from what you’ve created.”
You would appear to be a bit late on that admonition, I believe that has been happening for quite some time. Hasn’t yet destroyed most of Florida, but give it time.
Whatever happened to reparations and guaranteed monthly incomes? Maybe that’s what they need more money for?
They are still promising reparations and it will be fun either watching them disappoint the gimme people get disappointed or watching the people that work hand more of their money over to those that (mostly) don’t.
The “2026 Billionaires Tax Act” is an experiment and we know who the lab rats are! New York, Maryland, and Illinois are waiting with baited breath to use this Bear Trap on its citizens once it gets through the gauntlet of liberal courts! Cali just needs a few Wack-Job Black Robes to opine that it is a reasonable approach to using OPM – Other Peoples Money – when a fiscal mismanagement emergency calls for hoovering up any and all cash from suckers – I mean taxpayers!!! Got money? Might want to clench your cheeks!!!
As I’m understanding this legislation in California, I think the key phrase in this legislation, according to Turkey is, “impose a one-time 5% tax on individual wealth exceeding $1 billion”. This is not a tax based on “income” during the previous year, it’s based on accumulated “wealth” over a lifetime regardless of whether the billionaire has direct access to 5% of that wealth in cash or not; therefore it’s unreasonable confiscation of “wealth” and, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
Here’s reality; this tax will cost the billionaire $50,000,000, yes that’s 50 million dollars, for every billion dollars of accumulated “wealth” they have. Do these politicians actually think that billionaires have 50 million dollars just lying around, stuffed in a mattress, to give to the state?
Except the first billion dollars.
Steve Witherspoon, you’re making assumptions to justify an exaggerated view of what the legislation actually does. For billionaires, this is pocket change. They can make up for any “loss” through federal tax loopholes or other tricks in the tax code they have at their disposal. Furthermore, they can just as easily compensate for it in the stock market. They’re not going to go broke or face serious repercussions from the tax. Honestly, the whines about the “pain” are worse than the actual impact of the tax.
As I have said many times before, this contrarian weirdo will take the opposite side of any argument no matter how ridiculous.
X is our very own George Costanza doing the opposite every time.
Hullbobby, it’s called having an opposing view. It seems you keep failing to understand the point. Whether you call it an opposing or contrary view, the truth is there will always be one. Instead of complaining about it, maybe you could share YOUR opposing take on my perspective.
But you shouldn’t NEED to have the opposite view on every issue, that is what is weird. Just once maybe you could say, “hey, Turley is right, the Democrats are wrong on this issue”. Try it, maybe it will help you.
Hullbobby, “you shouldn’t NEED to have the opposite view on every issue, that is what is weird.”
So what? Is there some rule about how many times you can disagree or oppose someone?
I’ve sometimes pointed out that Professor Turley is right. Does that make you any less annoyed?
Have you ever really criticized Republicans, conservatives, or others on the right consistently? I doubt it, and I don’t think you will or demand that you should. But you’re oddly obsessed with the idea that I should be criticizing Democrats more because….of something.
Like Prez Trump using his new 747. Remember that lie you put out there.
hullbobby, he’s literate. Compared to you a rock has more smarts.
Actually “X”, it’s you who are making assumptions, I actually stated the numerical facts based on the information provided.
Feel free to try your absurd BS propaganda narrative on someone else.
Steve Witherspoon,
“As I’m understanding this legislation in California, I think the key phrase, according to Turkey, is, “impose a one-time 5% tax on individual wealth exceeding $1 billion”. This is not a tax based on “income” during the previous year, it’s on accumulated “wealth” over a lifetime regardless of whether the billionaire has direct access to 5% of that wealth in cash. therefore it’s unreasonable confiscation of “wealth” and, in my opinion, unconstitutional.”
You “believe” this is what the legislation means. You are applying your assumption to what you think it signifies.
“Do these politicians actually think billionaires have 50 million just lying around, stuffed in a mattress, to give to the state?”
They will always have $50 million available. They can access multiple sources to raise that amount.
Moreover, it’s not solely about accumulated wealth. It’s a one-time tax of 5% on income. We all know most billionaires don’t really have income; they earn from stocks. That’s why they have various options to cover whatever they owe with that 5% tax. Interestingly, you refer to wealth as ‘wealth,’ implying it might be somewhat imaginary.
So the moron’s idea is that since billionaires can raise FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS they should be forced to do so.
Also, since they are not cutting the CA budget what makes anyone think that this “one time” tax won’t be a yearly event? It is laughable.
“that since billionaires can raise fifty million dollars, they should be forced to do so.”
The can. They often make far more than that in a month. You didn’t know that. Most treat such expenses as just a part of doing business. Remember, it’s just a one-time tax. Texas threatened to tax New Yorkers with an excessive tax if they decided to move to Texas. That didn’t get Turley’s “attention,” how convenient.
Remember, many wealthy Californians who move to other states don’t just bring their wealth with them; they also carry their ideas of how things should run, their culture, and, yes, even their “wokeism.” Texas and other states are starting to complain about California’s influence creeping into their communities, since states like Florida and Texas have promoted themselves as lower-tax havens to those very same people.
It doesn’t matter what they make in a month or a year or in a lifetime, you shouldn’t be stealing their money in order to give it to someone else. A fair tax on all is how a commonwealth should operate, not taking huge amounts from some while taking nothing from others. Make everyone have skin in the game and end the envy olympics that are happening these days.
As we said in the blue collar city that I grew up in, “who the F are you?”. I find it sickening that some little failure demands that the state take money from others in order to give it to him, and this is what you are doing.
I hate rent control too. Who the he** is the state to tell me what I can charge to rent something that I own? When the “activists” (read that as those making huge salaries in NGOs and “non-profits”) say “but housing is so vital to one’s needs, we must force landlords to keep prices low” I always want to ask why they don’t advocate for only some grocery stores to have food price controls?
Hullbobby, stealing? It’s not stealing if the Constitution allows the state to pass laws and collect taxes.
You seem to think billionaires can’t swing a one-time 5% tax because it’s just too much. They spend as much maintaining their mansions or yachts every year. Not to mention the yearly bonuses they receive from their boards, which can exceed $50 million or more. Elon Musk was just granted a $1 trillion compensation package. Even $1 billion is pocket change for him.
States take money from the ultra-wealthy because they know it won’t harm them. They usually make back more than they pay out. Taxation isn’t theft—it’s part of being a responsible member of society. Billionaires should pay taxes like everyone else. Complaining about it while exploiting loopholes and tax exemptions meant for the rich only makes their grievances seem a bit elitist.
“It’s not stealing if the Constitution allows the state to pass laws and collect taxes.”
The Soviet constitution permitted the confiscation and abolition of private property.
It was theft then, and is now in CA — of the worst type: legalized theft.
HullBobby,
Great comment! I agree with the stealing of other’s people wealth, especially when using the government to do it, and giving it to others who did not earn it. Or, giving that money to failed policies, which the failed state of CA has many, like DEI in public schools.
You and hullbooby are truly a pair of idiots.
X wrote, “You ‘believe’ this is what the legislation means. You are applying your assumption to what you think it signifies.”
Only blithering idiots choose to put words in others mouths that they didn’t actually write/say.
No you f**king idiot, that’s not what I “believe” and not what I wrote! I wrote my comment in English, so please stop reading it in dumba$$.
What I actually wrote in my comment, in clear English, is what I understood based on what Turley wrote and any person with an IQ over 80 and an ounce of integrity would have understand and acknowledged that fact. Everything I wrote is based on what Turley wrote in his blog, period.
Here is an old adage that you should commit to memory…
It’s really clear that you don’t understand what that phrase means.
Fool.
Steve Witherspoon,
“As I’m understanding this legislation in California, I think the key phrase, according to Turkey, is, “impose a one-time 5% tax on individual wealth exceeding $1 billion”.
“As I’m understanding” or “believe” mirrors a distinction without a difference.
Your emotional reaction confirms I was correct. You refuse to admit it, which is your prerogative. However, it does not alter the fact that your interpretation of what this legislation means is flawed.
Furthermore, resorting to ad hominem attacks immediately exposes the weakness of your argument.
X wrote, “‘As I’m understanding’ or ‘believe’ mirrors a distinction without a difference.”
Oh My God, you really are either a babbling idiot or just trolling.
I’m think you’re likely just trolling, but just in case you’re not…
Belief is accepting something as truth (which I have not done) where sharing ones understanding of something is describing how something has been comprehended (which is what I’ve done). These two things are literally different and anyone that claims that they are a “distinction without a difference” has the limited comprehension of the English language of an early grade schooler or is reading in dumba$$.
I’ve now explained this multiple times and you either can’t comprehend the concept or you’re trolling for effect to drag the thread down an absurd rabbit hole deflection. Personally I think you’re an ignorant troll; therefore, I’m done conversing with you. You can have the last word, but you really do need to remember…
Choose wisely.
Steve Witherspoon, your continued emotional outbursts only further expose your irrationality.
It’s abundantly clear you’re overcompensating for your weak argument by hurling insults and ad hominem attacks.
“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
The irony is that you are not learning from that. You are proving it is true by keeping your mouth open and making things worse. Wow.
Steve Witherspoon, by the way. I took the liberty of doing a little research on you, and it turns out you have your own blog. Perhaps I will head over, and maybe we can have a more civil discussion.
I gather you are a libertarian from your articles.
X, let’s talk about paper billionaire that has 60 billion, the tax will cost him 3 billion and to pay he or she will have to sell stock which will come down in price let’s say 8% or another 4.8 billion. Plus the capital gains tax on the stock he sells subject to another 20% federal tax plus additional state taxes. I wouldn’t be surprised if this one time. 5% taxes doesn’t cost that person 10% or more of his fortune.
Your saying they can compensate thru the stock market shows your ignorance of how the market works, their having to sell stock to pay for the tax lowers the value of the stock not increase it.
Vincrod,
Keep in mind that “X” is a very foolish, ignorant, progressive shill and facts don’t mean a thing to an idiots like that, all they do is spew the approved narrative like a stupid parrot with ZERO understand of actual reality.
Steve Witherspoon, your wild emotional outbursts only show your inability to have a civil argument.
I agree with what you are saying, though I read that the payment of the tax is spread out over 5 years, which would mitigate substantially the economic impact. For example, if the person’s wealth is increasing at 5% annually, the tax would shave a 1% share off that appreciation.
Apparently, Steve Witherspoon or I were not aware of that interesting fact. It makes the whole idea less draconian than Turley made it seem. Maybe Steve will calm down and reconsider his position on the proposed legislation.
Vincrod, we need more comments from you! Excellent points.
Vincrod, you assume your billionaire HAS to sell stock to pay for it. They don’t have to. They can borrow the money against their stock, pay for it out of their own funds, or pay it over time through their profits or another source they have at their disposal. As I said, Billionaires have a LOT of options and sources to draw from, loopholes, tax exemptions, stock, property, and yes, even their very own personal funds. We know they can afford it. It’s not like they have everything tied down in investments, stocks, or other non-cash holdings. Plus, they often have armies of accountants to help them figure things out.
I understand that you believe in the “tax is theft” mantra, but reality does not agree with that view.
You want citizens to take out a loan to pay taxes. There are no words.
For a billionaire that would make sense. They always borrow money rather than use their own because they can always use their stocks or company as collateral for whatever reason they choose.
Some people pay their taxes with a credit card. I’m not saying it’s a good idea. But its an option for some.
X, they sure have other options and all of them cost money which I’m sure you don’t care because it doesn’t affect you. But believe me, it will soon affect you. After getting all that free money from the “billionaires” they will realize that the money is really with the “millionaires”, after all they can afford it, and if you live in CA and own a house and have a good job you are probably one of the more than 1 million that are millionaires. Hey, it’s only $50,000 (per million) and I’m sure you have options, get a second mortgage or dip into your 401K. But why stop there, let’s get 5% from all businesses worth $1 million or more …… and don’t forget politicians know the people, for the ballot initiative they say 90% of the money will be to “healthcare” and 10% to “K-12 education” I guess they had to get the teacher’s union support so they threw them a bone.
Vincrod,
Excellent take down of the slow and dumb one using facts and an understanding of economics.
X, the amateur economist strikes again. He must be thinking of the tax loop holes given to the billionaires in charge of the green energy business in California. Go to California and make a lot of money in the green energy business but you better make sure you have your pants hitched up tight. Hey X, how much money do you think California will spend in court trying to squeeze the money out of the states billionaires. What we really have here is a simple playing of the envy card by Newsom. Here’s the plan. Create a lot of poverty in your state due to your policies and then just blame it on those greedy billionaires. Suckers like X will fall for it hook line and sinker every time. The truth is that the administration of the state by Newsom is an outright failure and instead of taking responsibility for the failure he has to blame someone else. Step right up X they’re handing out all day suckers and you better get yours before all the billionaires are no longer in the state to pay for your sweet delight. Cause and effect is only denied by the flat earthers.
TiT,
Well said and excellent take down of the slow and dumb one!
Thinkitthrough, despite your blog name, you really don’t think things through when you post.
At least you acknowledge that they make a LOT of money in green energy investments, which means they could easily afford a small, one-time tax that the California governor has proposed.
There’s a strange assumption that billionaires never have enough money to pay taxes, but they certainly have plenty to buy politicians and bribe presidents.
George
federal tax loopholes or other tricks in the tax code they
______________________________
Who put these loopholes you speak of?
Yup. They do.
Wiseoldlawyer wrote, “Yup. They do.”
I think it’s fair to assume that you were replying to this sentence, “Do these politicians actually think that billionaires have 50 million dollars just lying around, stuffed in a mattress, to give to the state?”
Well then, those politicians are publicly confirming that they really are “box of rocks” dumb, just like we thought they were.
Steve,
“Well then, those politicians are publicly confirming that they really are “box of rocks” dumb, just like we thought they were.”
Great comment!
To me, does not matter if it is a billion dollars, a million dollars, or $100,000 dollars. The fact is, if that person made their money, it is their money. They made it. They worked for it. They took the risks to make it. I can recall Bill Maher said something to the effect of, on a 50 or 60% tax on his tax bracket he looked right into the camera and said “Democrats, you do that and you are going to lose me.”
Also, this tax is political propaganda. If they impose this kind of tax on someone that became a billionaire in December because their net worth surpassed one billion dollars by one dollar, then their tax would be 5 cents. But the politicians can say the taxed the billionaire. That’s the other reality.
“Quiet. Quiet Piggy”
It’s going to be a huge golden pedophile pavilion right next to the White House. It will be the best pedophile pavilion in the world. MAGA
Troll
We fled California in 2013, to South Carolina. I still worked remote for my California company (as a 1099 consultant), and am presently still working part time for them. At first I was able to fill out a form and send it to California emancipating myself from them, tax-wise. Then in about 2015 that all changed. Since I was still working for a California based company, I was obligated to pay Ca income taxes. in 12 years I have been back to Ca once for a short stay (2015) , and do not recall using any public services. Yet, I still have to file and pay income tax there. I do the payroll for my firm, and every year I am so tempted to not file my 1099 with Ca, but I am one of those stupid law abiding citizens that can not bring myself about to do it.
It appears the solution to your issue is to stop working for your California employer. You depend on a California employer to support your North Carolina residency.
South Carolina- North Carolina was too purple. And what does your comment have to do with the price of rice in China? Why should I not be able to work for a California company without paying for Ca public services like schools, police, fire- when I am not there?
You’re complaining about paying taxes to California because you STILL work for a company based there. You left because you didn’t like paying their high taxes, but didn’t want to leave a good paying job. Like I said, the solution to your “annoyance” is to stop working for Your employer who is based in California and seek one in South Carolina.
Give it up MAGA people do not understand the concept of “society”. It’s where people take care of people. You know, helping educate the poor kid that lives on the other side of the tracks because some day he may grow up to be a doctor and treat your cancer when you get old.
Here is another concept MAGA does not understand. Intelligence does not depend on parental income. One look at Don Jr and Erik should disabuse you of that concept.
1099 income is taxable regardless of 1099 employees residence. Form an LLC or Corp to avoid.
Funny how Newsom and his hyperrich cronies always manage to exempt themselves from any real effects from the “anti-rich” policies they impose.
So, it mainly applies to billionaires. I doubt Newsom or the majority of his so-called ‘cronies” are billionaires. They still pay income taxes on their millions. Remember that billionaires and millionaires benefit from numerous tax exemptions and loopholes in the tax code that many others at the federal level do not have.
So let’s assume this supposed one time tax fixes the budget deficit for one year. California just like the federal government has a spending problem. What happens the next year? Maybe California needs to address the spending problems which is what got them in trouble. Just saying.
Isn’t the Trump administration currently increasing federal expenditures at an excessive rate? They are allocating billions of dollars to agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and other related entities. While DOGE was initially expected to help identify cost savings within government operations, these efforts have fallen short of expectations. The big, beautiful bill is significantly expanding the federal deficit. Additionally, President Trump is likely to face defeat in his ongoing tariff dispute case, and Congress will also very likely have to refund the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from the unlawful tariffs. That’s in the hundreds of billions. Not good.
Dollar Bill,
Oh, they will just change it to multi-millionaires making $500M. Once those people leave, and they will, they will lower it to those multi-millionaires making $250M. And so on. Then they will have to spin it like, “We all have to pay our fair share!” We all know and have seen by the IRS data, people are getting fed up with the failed policies of the failed state of CA. That is why people and companies are leaving.
“…the choice between financial discipline and tax increases.” The left, now fully nihilist and therefore fully tyrannical, sees no such choice. The left views taking people’s hard earned money at gunpoint and turning it over to the lazy, the wasteful, the corrupt, even the outright crooked, as entirely moral. Anyone with any sense gets out of any state controlled by the Democrats.
This 5% tax is no big deal for billionaires. On a billion dollars, it’s only 50 million — chump change for them. They’re not going broke, and they can easily make up that much in a month through the stock market.
Stories about billionaires leaving California are exaggerated. They still do business in the state because the talent is there, the weather is great, and moving is way more expensive than paying the tax. Moving to Florida? Good luck with the rising home insurance, property taxes, and sales taxes. Texas? They’ve got sky-high property taxes and a crazy business tax.
For example, those moving to Florida often find out their property taxes and fees are higher, and with more people moving in, costs go up to build the infrastructure. Those claims that rich taxpayers are ditching California aren’t entirely true — many come back after realizing the higher taxes and insurance aren’t worth it.
California has something other states don’t — a unique vibe that keeps bringing people back. The energy, the weather, and the overall atmosphere are big reasons. Even if billionaires “leave,” they often keep a vacation” home in the state to escape the unpredictable weather of places like Florida and Texas.
Florida has no income tax and the Governor is proposing an elimination of property taxes for residents. The tax savings from a high tax state like CA are massive.
Anonymous says:December 2, 2025 at 7:42 AM
Florida has no income tax and……………
True but please don’t come for residency, stay in your state, don’t run from what you’ve created. Floridians are happy folks, we like gators, snakes, hurricanes, very hot summers (you won’t like that), our guns, we carry our guns, wells, septic’s. All the things libs hate we’re OK with, so stay in your blue state that you created and “pay your fair share” whatever that is, isn’t that what voted for and the candidates you’ve supported.
California good, Florida bad, please stay there.
Your argument is that since they can afford it (by your calculations), they should pay it for the privilege of living in CA (a privilege that all citizens of the state enjoy); it ignores the fact that such a tax is discriminatory, and based upon envy as opposed to fairness. The fact that you are fine with taking someone else’s property because you think that others (likely including you) will benefit shows a lack of morality on your part. Only when the majority of citizens in CA are paying into tax revenues will we see any attempt to honestly address out of control spending (as that will be when the majority care). I would remind you that the federal income taxes that 50% of us pay were originally designed to affect only 4000 people in the country; be careful what you wish for.
Sorry- you highly overestimate the attraction of Ca. We lived there for 35 years and that “vibe” went from what you describe, to a cesspool. We defected in 2013, at the start of the decline- it is now a sh**hole.
X, I read your posts with humor and laugh out loud. “Chump change” and “easily make up that much in a month through the stock market” are priceless. That’s hilarious. Who writes your stuff? I can clearly read who you are through your posts, and it’s nauseatingly obvious. Stay in California, please.. we don’t need your level of ignorance or condescension anywhere else.
X, your answer is laughable. So FL has high insurance rates, property taxes and sales taxes? Yes but they are less than California and the cost of a home in an urban area is 35% than in CA, property taxes are 29% less and sales tax is 20% less and don’t forget gas prices $5 in CA, less than $3 in FL.
And as I mentioned before they won’t make the wealth tax in the stock market, the stock they have to sell to be able to pay it will actual lower the price of their stock.
But like they say, for leftists IGNORANCE IS BLISS
Vincrof,
Another great take down of the slow and dumb one!! I have been to both the failed state of CA and the successful state of FL. CA is a sh!thole by the Democrats own making.
NY is where I’d rather stay,
I get allergic smelling hay!
Vincrof, FL does have high home insurance, but not higher than CA. FL does have property tax, but not as high as CA. FL does have a sales tax, but not as high as CA.
Here is a little CA hidden fee I heard about recently. My brother had to pay $700 to register his car last year. In FL it is about $45.
Vincrof also hit upon gas prices. Add up the cost of filling up your tank, most likely on two cars, every week when in CA gas is $5 a gallon vs FL at $3. So you have a 20 gallon tank and if you fill up once a week, as most commuters do, it is $100 in CA vs $60 in FL. DON’T FORGET THAT THIS IS FIFTY-TWO WEEKS A YEAR. This little hidden cost ends up being $5,000 in CA vs $3000 in FL. Just another $2000 difference per year per car. Have a spouse that commutes and one live-in child that works and it is now $15,000 vs $9,000.
HullBobby,
Thank you for pointing out those facts. Based off your facts and examples, I can see why so many people are leaving the failed state of CA.
The exact points I was making. Glad you pointed out the car registration fees.
The Court will love to hear and decide this case and after the decision comes down Newsome will no longer be living Life In the Fast Lane on the way to the nomination. It will look like he is driving an Old 55.
If approved by the CA legislature, meaning its law, then they have no case.
Oh, the 9th circuit has the power to overturn anything- it just picks and chooses what. They have overturned many propositions passed overwhelmingly by the citizens of the state of California.
So your thought is that since it’s a law there can’t be a case? Wow, that’s a bad take. I suppose you never thought about those being affected becoming plaintiffs.
The numbers -to make it clear for the Billionaires in Rio Linda – 5% of a billion, just those who barely make it over that line, is $50 Million.
California use to be a wonderful place to live, sun, beach, mountains etc. until the Left Wing Dem’s/Woke Crowd came to power and ruined the state with their Left wing policies. Newsom plans and ways to steal your $$$$? Wonder if he and his friends will pay a wealth tax? Why would anybody want to live in California under radical Left Wing Socialist policies? Even Newsome’s wife family left the state to Florida.
California seems to be increasingly functioning as a socialist state. One wonders… Who defines what constitutes a “legitimate legislative purpose”? And, as Thomas Sowell has asked: What is your fair share of what someone else worked for?
The Court has a different make up, now, and I suspect Newsome’s confiscatory scheme won’t make it there unless he himself brings it there in a Hail Mary after losing on appeal.
California is showing the truth in Thatcher’s statement about socialism
Well said. This is the canary in the cave. This the opening salvo for the Marxists.